Some time ago, the Council of State rejected the proposal
that Polish should abe the official language in the future self-governing
Poland. This vote, which took place against the wishes of the head of the
Ministry, throws considerable light on the question of Russia’s master
classes and on the “specific features” of our political system and
administration.

The long history of the Polish language question in connection with
Polish self-government has been highlighted in the press. The Russian
landlords, who are at the helm of the state, started negotiations with the
Polish aristocracy on this question a long time ago, as far back as
1907. The terms were discussed for at least co-operation, or simply a
relatively peaceful cohabitation between the Russian Black Hundreds and the
Polish Black Hundreds. And all this was done; of course, entirely and
solely in the interests of the “national culture”.

Polish national culture was defended by the Polish landlords, who
bargained for self-government (instead of autonomy) and for Polish as the
official language. Russian national culture was defended by the
Great-Russian landlords, who stipulated (possessing everything, they had no
need to bar gain) supremacy for Russian national culture and the severance
from Poland of the “Russian” Holm area. The two parties made a deal,
which, among other things, was directed against the Jews, whom
they reduced in advance to a restrictive “numerus clausus”, so
that Poland should not lag be hind Russia in Black-Hundred baiting and
oppression of the Jews.

Stolypin is reported to have conducted these negotiations with the
Polish aristocracy, the land magnates of Poland, in person. Stolypin made
promises. The bills were introduced.
But ... the Holm area found itself detached from Poland, whereas the Polish
language in a self-governing Poland was rejected by our Council of
State. Stolypin’s cause was “faithfully and truly” championed by
Kokovtsov, but with out avail. The Right members of the Council of State
did not support him.

Here is another agreement, although a minor one, that was “torn
up”. Recently, Guchkov stated in the name of the all-Russian bourgeoisie
that the latter had entered into a tacit agreement with the
counter-revolutionary government “to support it in return for
reforms”. The support was given, but no reforms ensued.

In the example we have quoted, it was not the bourgeoisie, not the
opposition, but the blue-blooded landlords who concluded what was also a
tacit agreement, viz., “we” shall take a step towards Stolypin, and shall
receive self-government, with the Polish language. They took the step, but
received no Polish language.

Valuable, political lessons are to be learnt from this small
example. The struggle of nationalities is developing before our eyes into a
deal between the ruling classes of two nations, in which special provision
is made for the oppression of a third nation (the Jewish). We must not
forget that all ruling classes, the bourgeoisie as well as the landlords,
even the most democratic bourgeoisie, behave in the same way.

Russia’s real political system and administration are revealed in their
class basis: the landlords give the orders; they decide and rule. The power
of this class is supreme. It gives the bourgeoisie “access” ... only to
agreements, which it tears up.

Nor is that all. It appears that even within the master class
itself agreements are “torn up” with extraordinary and supernatural
ease. This is what distinguishes Russia from other class states; this
constitutes our exceptionalism, under which problems resolved in Europe two
hundred or a hundred years ago are still unresolved here.